Quick Briefing
- Here's the scoop: While most folks were panicking and taking losses as Bitcoin's price dropped between November and February, big institutions like MicroStrategy and Tether were actually scooping up tons of BTC. They weren't selling; they were buying cheap from all the "forced sellers" – think leveraged traders getting liquidated and short-term players bailing out. It was a massive transfer of ownership from weak hands to strong, patient ones.
- The big picture is this is a totally new game compared to past cycles. Instead of big players dumping on retail during highs, they're now accumulating during fear. This means a huge chunk of Bitcoin supply is moving into hands that aren't worried about short-term swings or margin calls. It reshapes who really controls the supply, potentially setting the stage for more stability and upside when the market eventually turns, as these new owners are "built to wait."
- But here's the catch: this shift doesn't mean prices are going to skyrocket tomorrow. Institutions are accepting some hefty paper losses right now due to accounting rules, even while buying more. So, while they're built for the long haul, watch out for continued market instability; their conviction will be tested if the slump drags on, and it won't magically prevent more short-term pain for the impatient.
The market is weak right now. Price stays under pressure, rebounds fail quickly, and confidence is thin. In this kind of environment, most participants focus on what is going wrong. Institutions focus on something else: who is being forced to sell. That difference explains why losses are piling up on one side of the market while accumulation continues on the other.
Sponsored
Between November and February, Bitcoin did not break. Ownership shifted.
Weak markets reveal forced sellers
When Bitcoin drops in a leveraged environment, selling is not evenly distributed. The first sellers are rarely making a calm decision. They are reacting to margin calls, fund redemptions, or internal risk limits. Their selling is not strategic. It is compulsory.
During this period, most downside moves aligned with liquidation events and deleveraging. Price moved fast because sellers needed liquidity immediately. Institutions do not fear this behavior. They wait for it. Forced selling creates supply that does not care about price.
That is when accumulation happens.
MicroStrategy: buying while reporting losses
From November 2025 through February 2026, MicroStrategy continued adding Bitcoin as price weakened.
Source: Microstrategy Official / Self-generated-chart
Accumulation:
- November 2025: about 8,700 $BTC added
- December 2025: about 11,800 BTC added
- January 2026: about 41,000 BTC added
- Total holdings by early February: roughly 713,500 BTC
Cost and reported impact:
- Estimated average cost: around $76,000 per BTC
- Q4 2025 reported loss: around $12.4B, largely from accounting impairment
These losses did not come from selling Bitcoin. They came from accounting rules that require assets to be marked down when price falls below cost. The Bitcoin remained on the balance sheet. Holdings increased while reported losses grew.
That combination looks contradictory only if price is the only lens being used.
Metaplanet: the same logic, smaller scale
Metaplanet followed the same structure.
Accumulation:
- Q4 2025 purchases: about 4,279 BTC
- Total holdings by early 2026: about 35,102 $BTC
- Estimated average cost: around $107,700 per BTC
Source: Reuters, Yahoo Finance / Self-Generated-Chart
Reported impact:
- Accounting impairment: about $680M
- Funding raised through equity, warrants, and debt, including plans for up to $137M in new capital
Despite being deeply underwater on paper, Metaplanet publicly reaffirmed its accumulation strategy. Like MicroStrategy, it accepted accounting volatility in exchange for long-term exposure.
Other large holders showed similar behavior
This was not limited to two companies.
- Tether added 8,888.8 BTC in January 2026 using operating profits. This Bitcoin is treated as a reserve asset, not a short-term position.
- Spot ETFs such as BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund continued holding large amounts of BTC. Investor redemptions occurred, but the underlying Bitcoin largely stayed inside regulated custody.
- Mining companies like Marathon Digital limited selling despite margin pressure, choosing to retain BTC rather than distribute it aggressively into weakness.
Across different categories, long-duration holders did not rush to exit.
Where the real losses occurred
The losses during this weak phase did not come from long-term holders changing their view on Bitcoin. They came from leverage, short time horizons, and forced risk reduction.
From November to February, market data across exchanges and on-chain sources shows that roughly $105–200 billion in value was transferred through a combination of liquidations, fund deleveraging, and realized losses. This was not a single event. It was a sequence of stress episodes that unfolded as price stayed under pressure.
Derivatives markets absorbed the first impact. Repeated liquidation waves across Bitcoin and correlated assets removed an estimated $40–70 billion in notional long exposure. Many of these liquidations occurred during failed rebounds, where leverage was rebuilt and then flushed again. These exits were forced and executed without regard for price.
Hedge funds and proprietary desks reduced exposure as volatility expanded. Futures open interest dropped sharply during several weeks in this period, reflecting controlled but loss-bearing exits rather than panic. Across funds and trading desks, this risk reduction likely accounted for $20–40 billion in realized losses and exposure cuts.
Systematic and volatility-targeting strategies added steady sell pressure. As trends broke and volatility thresholds were breached, positions were unwound mechanically. These strategies do not respond to valuation, only to signals, and their collective de-risking contributed materially to downside pressure.
Retail participants carried a significant share of the damage. On-chain data shows elevated realized losses as smaller holders exited near local lows. Across spot and leveraged positions, retail realized losses during this window are reasonably estimated at $20–35 billion, with many exits occurring after liquidation cascades rather than before them.
These losses did not occur because Bitcoin changed fundamentally. They occurred because these positions required price stability in a market that remained unstable.
Institutions were not competing with other buyers during this period. They were absorbing supply from participants who could no longer maintain exposure.
How this cycle differs from older ones
In earlier cycles, large holders sold into rising prices. Retail demand created liquidity, and whales distributed exposure. That behavior trained many participants to expect selling at highs.
This cycle shows the opposite pattern. Institutions accumulated into fear. Supply moved from leveraged and reactive hands into balance sheets designed to wait. That shift does not guarantee short-term upside, but it changes who controls supply during volatility.
The role of structure and psychology
Most losses in weak markets are not caused by bad analysis. They are caused by fragile structure. Leverage, short time horizons, and emotional pressure turn volatility into realized loss.
Institutions removed those pressures:
- No margin calls
- Long-duration funding
- Acceptance of accounting drawdowns
- No urgency to be right immediately
This difference explains why outcomes diverged so sharply.
Take
From November to February, Bitcoin did not experience a failure of value. It experienced a change in ownership.
- Institutions accumulated tens of thousands of $BTC
- Reported losses increased while holdings grew
- Real losses fell on leveraged and short-term participants
- Supply moved into hands with no urgency to sell
Those who took losses needed the market to behave. Those who accumulated were built to wait.
About Meow Alert
Crypto analyst and researcher with 13k+ followers on Binance Square. Focused on on-chain data and market structure.
Intelligence Stream
Trump Loses Tariff Power: Why This Could Trigger the Next Crypto Bull Run
3 Reads
Author Update
Bitcoin Accumulation Has Stopped: ETF Outflows and Whale Activity Signal Market Shift
15 Reads
Author Update
Massive Ethereum Shift: $542M ETH Inflows, Whale Shorts and Dormant Wallet Wake
12 Reads
Author Update